Levi's Vintage Clothing

[airfrogusmc]

With all due respect, the best way in my humble opinion to get these 'amazing fades' is not to 'baby' the jeans, but to wear them hard and wash them as needed. Which is often, if you lead an active life.

Move more, wash often. Ditch the car and get a mountain bike. Simple

I wear the hell outta my jeans and never baby them in fact they hit water rarely...

The problem is every time they hit water the back ground that helps create contrast gets lighter with the loss of indigo. I've found that keeping them out of water as much as possible gives more contrasty fades. Whether thats what you like or dislike is quit alright but I certainly have the right to have a preference and why should it bother anyone the way I fade my jeans.

[airfrogusmc]

Couldn't agree more. And the whole idea of wearing them to achieve a set goal, rather than letting them do their own thing through a natural wash a wear cycle (whether that be daily wear with washing once a month, or wearing a couple times a week and washing once or twice a year), is lame.

So you have your way I have mine but Lame PLEASE you certainly can do better than that. LoL. I don't attack you for your choices. Breaking jeans in is a set goal and what much of this thread and others is all about.

[roy6]

I do the same as afusmc for the first six months, then wash as needed. Seems to work well. For some reason they never seem so dirty or smell so bad until after the first wash, maybe because the starch makes them somewhat water repellant? After that mark i can't seem to go for much longer than a month without washing before they get on my nerves.

CTB- I also have found that wearing only one pair of jeans gets old and limits the wardrobe choices. Skinny jackets with full-cut jeans and vice-versa looks stupid. Nice to have some variety.

[setterman]

So you have your way I have mine but Lame PLEASE you certainly can do better than that. LoL. I don't attack you for your choices. Breaking jeans in is a set goal and what much of this thread and others is all about.

My comments aren't directed at you, but in general at the idea that something jeans are inclined to do on their own (wear and fade) becomes a planned, rule driven process, done more for style sake than as any natural expression of your lifestyle.

[Stratos]

I didn't read the article closely enough before posting that link... What struck me, however, was the guy's insistence that only one approach will yield perfect results, and his disappointment over the way those particular '67s turned out. Dude takes this shit too seriously.

He does, he's missing the entire point of wearing quality jeans...

[Stratos]

My comments aren't directed at you, but in general at the idea that something jeans are inclined to do on their own (wear and fade) becomes a planned, rule driven process, done more for style sake than as any natural expression of your lifestyle.

Couldn't agree more, can't rep now, owe you one

[Paul T]

from style forum.

Does anyone else have pics of current tags, from 2011? Just for the next time someone asks how to date their LVC?

2. How do I know what year/season my 1947 jeans were produced? I'm interested because as I understand the sizing has varied within the past few years.

Thanks!

Look in the inner tag. There will be a date, near the production code (often 643) M.

March 2000:

Season 1, 2006:

March 2006, - this slightly different tag comes on the jeans with the 'R' stamp, made for the US, as opposed to European/Japanese market.

SE (september?) 2007:

4809 (Season 1?) 2009

[dr.house]

I agree totally with airfrogusmc saying "the less water the higher contrast". Absolutely true. But on the other hand, "the harder you wear your jean, the nicer they'll get" is also true. A weekend of hard garden work adds more fades to your jean than three months daily wear just to the bureau 4 sure.

And I've seen overdozes of high contrasts especially on japanese stuff what I personally don't like. The truth is somewhere inbetween...Today I've soaked my 37's which are worn 60 times for garden- and housework (hot saltwater soak in a tub, wet hang drying in the sun). I wanted to avoid another soak as long as possible cuz' 37's are hard to break in, but this morning my lil' daughter peed on my legs , so...what should I do :confused:

Edit:...and don't forget that water is a main part of the progress, besides the fact that it's good for the fabric and the threads (especially cotton thread), at least after my experiences. Wear 'em as hard as you can and wash when needed is my way to go.

[airfrogusmc]

My comments aren't directed at you, but in general at the idea that something jeans are inclined to do on their own (wear and fade) becomes a planned, rule driven process, done more for style sake than as any natural expression of your lifestyle.

They were saying that the method that some here use is lame so kinda was directed at us. Keeping them out of water for the first few months is also a natural way to wear jeans and isn't any more or less planned than say trying to shrink them fast so they fit good. No more a rule than someone saying put them in water right away to shrink them. But yeah us folks that like to wear'm are doing what you think is lame. If my jeans keep fading the way they do being worn raw for months and then only being rinsed when it is absolutely necessary then and that way of doing it is lame then so be it.

" (whether that be daily wear with washing once a month, or wearing a couple times a week and washing once or twice a year), is lame."

And I doubt many here wear their jeans harder than I do. Where did anyone get that because they are staying out of water they're not getting worn hard?

[setterman]

Ya kinda did and keeping them out of water for the first few months is also a natural way to wear jeans and isn't any more or less planned that say trying to shrink them fast so they fit good. No more a rule than someone saying put them in water right away. But yeah us folks that like to wear'm are doing what you think is lame. If my jeans keep fading the way they do being worn raw for months and then only being rinsed when it is absolutely necessary then and that way of doing it is lame then so be it.

" (whether that be daily wear with washing once a month, or wearing a couple times a week and washing once or twice a year), is lame."

And I doubt many here wear their jeans harder than I do. Where did anyone get that because they are staying out of water they're not getting worn hard?

Jeez, I wish you were able to comprehend half of what you read.

Please post pix of your hard worn jeans. As a wise man said to me, this thread seems to be more about accumulation rather than about jeans that have had a large amount of wear. Since no one is harder on jeans than you, you should have some wonderful examples to share that you've been breaking in the past couple years.

[setterman]

what I'd prefer to talk about today, LVC lady's 701XX....

http://sivletto.com/system/search/product.asp?id=6228&page=1&rnum=62

popped up in the raw for women thread a couple days ago, but haven't shown up here yet. Doesn't mention what year they're supposed to be, but between the double needle arcs, and what appears to be a card stock patch, I'd assume they're a 50s model. Would love to get a pair for my lady, but can't afford to spend that much right now, and she said she's be afraid to wear a pair of jeans that cost that much anyways!

[airfrogusmc]

Jeez, I wish you were able to comprehend half of what you read.

Please post pix of your hard worn jeans. As a wise man said to me, this thread seems to be more about accumulation rather than about jeans that have had a large amount of wear. Since no one is harder on jeans than you, you should have some wonderful examples to share that you've been breaking in the past couple years.

There's plenty of photos I've posted here over the years.

I just cannot for the life of me understand why this way that ME or ROY breaking in a pair of jeans concerns you so much. I could care less how you or anyone else wears or breaks in their jeans but this wear raw as long as you can method seems to bring out something in ya buddy? LoL

What I said and what I will say is that in my experience if you want the most contrast in your fades keep the water to a min. And I have found that the longer the first soak is held off for the more contrasty the fades. If you don't want that or don't like don't do it. But don't go around insulting people by saying what they do is lame because its not the way you do something. I doubt that you've ever gone 6 months wearing a pair of LVCs raw. I say don't knock it till ya try it.

Why that should get you so worked up all the time I have no idea. I think ya need to go see Dr Phil maybe but then I'm sure he would have a field day with most of us LoL....

[setterman]

There's plenty of photos I've posted here over the years.

I just cannot for the life of me understand why this way that ME or ROY breaking in a pair of jeans concerns you so much. I could care less how you or anyone else wears or breaks in their jeans but this wear raw as log as you can method seems to bring out something in ya buddy? LoL

How did Roy get into this now?

As much as you would like it to be, the conversation wasn't about you or your technique. You have since made it about yourself though, and it's a topic I find extremely uninteresting.

I know you've posted pix years ago, I want to see your current "work" and the fruits of your labor. Probably won't post anything though, so I guess I may as well just put you ya back in the ignore list.

[Maynard Friedman]

Anyone for tennis?

[airfrogusmc]

How did Roy get into this now?

As much as you would like it to be, the conversation wasn't about you or your technique. You have since made it about yourself though, and it's a topic I find extremely uninteresting.

I know you've posted pix years ago, I want to see your current "work" and the fruits of your labor. Probably won't post anything though, so I guess I may as well just put you ya back in the ignore list.

Do you read anything? See post # 15399. He does it "according to you" the lame way too. I just posted a photo a couple of days ago. And whats changed since I posted them however long ago. Those photos showed they were worn hard.

This conversation we are having NOW is about how you insult people that don't see things your way.

[cheapmuthafukr]

can we all agree that both ways have their merits?

i mean, i wash my jeans very regularly, and have always gotten good results. there are people here who never wash and get good, but different results. neither is the right way, and neither is wrong. the only wrong way to wear jeans would be to not wear them on your legs, but on your head or something stupid like that.

[airfrogusmc]

can we all agree that both ways have their merits?

i mean, i wash my jeans very regularly, and have always gotten good results. there are people here who never wash and get good, but different results. neither is the right way, and neither is wrong. the only wrong way to wear jeans would be to not wear them on your legs, but on your head or something stupid like that.

Its all about what you like. If you read my post that seem to put poochman over his limit is all in post #15390. Heres what I said in that post.

"I actually like the way my jeans turn out much better if I wait 5 or 6 months before they hit water then for the first year or so I keep them out of water as much as possible. I've found that the fades have more contrast. I've broke my raw denim in all different kind of ways over the years and the method I use is the one I prefer. This is the same thing that Levis recommends BTW."

But in fairness I kinda post that once in a while just to watch him get all worked up. It works every time. LoL...

[dr.house]

To each his own...and yeah, I'm sure those guys gave a f.ck about washing or not:

[Paul T]

Actually, I reckon many cowboys were every bit as obsessed with their denim as many of us are... debating about washing vs washing, and starching vs not starching. But some of them probably worked harder than us wusses....

(and thanks to cheep for dropping in with some wisdom)

[matt0]

These are my 1947 501s, I absolutely love them to bits. They've had just under 2 years wear and around 5 washes (but I can't remember exactly).

[Joseph Hill]

One of Levis first real forays into the Eastern market was through Abercrombie & Fitch in the thirties. The dude ranch was developed to help working ranches make ends meet during the depression. A&F was at the time the camping gear and outdoor wear outfitter for the well to do, and they went to Levis for their reputation of quality and ubiquitousness in the West. Levis then advertised in New York as "Guaranteed to shrink, guaranteed to fade". As these concepts are diametrically opposite to what garment makers usually tout, they were obviously important. The 'worked in, lived in' fading had presumably reached some level of status, even then. Whether they were as geeky as folks today about the minutiae of their 'fadz' is unlikely, but then people are people, and we always find something to obsess about.

[Dr_Heech]

They look great matt0, repped.

.

[Dr_Heech]

One of Levis first real forays into the Eastern market was through Abercrombie & Fitch in the thirties. The dude ranch was developed to help working ranches make ends meet during the depression. A&F was at the time the camping gear and outdoor wear outfitter for the well to do, and they went to Levis for their reputation of quality and ubiquitousness in the West. Levis then advertised in New York as "Guaranteed to shrink, guaranteed to fade". As these concepts are diametrically opposite to what garment makers usually tout, they were obviously important. The 'worked in, lived in' fading had presumably reached some level of status, even then. Whether they were as geeky as folks today about the minutiae of their 'fadz' is unlikely, but then people are people, and we always find something to obsess about.

Many thanks Mr. Hill for putting us back on the path,

and interesting note about the added Guarantees for people who lived in the east. In the west, they were just guaranteed not to rip!

must spread.

[dr.house]

One of Levis first real forays into the Eastern market was through Abercrombie & Fitch in the thirties. The dude ranch was developed to help working ranches make ends meet during the depression. A&F was at the time the camping gear and outdoor wear outfitter for the well to do, and they went to Levis for their reputation of quality and ubiquitousness in the West. Levis then advertised in New York as "Guaranteed to shrink, guaranteed to fade". As these concepts are diametrically opposite to what garment makers usually tout, they were obviously important. The 'worked in, lived in' fading had presumably reached some level of status, even then. Whether they were as geeky as folks today about the minutiae of their 'fadz' is unlikely, but then people are people, and we always find something to obsess about.

Yep and rep! Thanks a lot!

[grooveholmes]

That's very interesting, JH. thanks for that-- I didn't know the link btwn A&F and Levi's. I do always marvel at what the A&F name has become, given its rich history.

[devilish]

Yeah, I'm guessing that if there actually were a Messr's Abercrombie & Fitch then they are probably spinning in their graves at the complete shit the company has become.

[PandaXS]

I am getting a pair of LVCs for a class project but unfortunately I cannot find measurements any where of jeans my size. Does anyone have measurements for either 1955 size 38 or 1937 size 40? If so, please pm me. Thanks

[Joseph Hill]

Yeah, I'm guessing that if there actually were a Messr's Abercrombie & Fitch then they are probably spinning in their graves at the complete shit the company has become.

I'm not so sure. I once had a scan (now lost) of an A&F advertisement from the mid-twenties for a line of smart vests. They were in Tiger, Leopard, and Zebra. Not prints, actual Tiger, Leopard, and Zebra. Poor taste is not a new thing.

[robbie]

^

In the 1920's A&F were a cross between Cabela's and Sky Mall. They sold all kinds of weird stuff, Mah Jongg sets, ivory chop sticks, et cetera.

Anybody buy the Big Duck Bag yet? thing looks pretty cool and HUGE, you could fit 2-3 toddlers inside that thing.

[josh mullen]

Washed my 55's for the first time since their initial soaks. They've received only 3-4 months of aggregated wear, but look great nonetheless. The fabric has really come to life--certainly more so than any other LVC jean I've had, save for maybe my 66's.